Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Confessions of a Drone Warrior

gq.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 172 posts

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#41

Post by riggins »

MisterWebz wrote: post #35
riggins wrote: post #29

Considering Bryant is one of the only operators speaking out, his conscience seems to bother him more than the average. Here's a comparison (an IAMA thread from reddit). http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ghkm7/iama_drone_sens... Q: Have you ever had to strike a target that you were not comfortable with? sensor_operator: No, I trust our JTACs 1000000% they really know their stuff. While this was the top voted com…

> I think this shows a fundamental truth about humans which is that they'll kill without losing too much sleep. I don't think you can deduce that from the AMA. It could just as well be a PR campaign and wouldn't necessarily represent what an actual drone operator really believes.

my belief isn't based on just the AMA. Its just another example of the dynamic.

my observation is there's no shortage of willing participants for officially sanctioned, military actions where the participants believe there will be no consequences.

And I'm not saying that as a value judgement. I'm saying that as an observation about human nature.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#42

Post by anologwintermut »

netcan wrote: post #18
coldcode wrote: post #5

Killing distant people in a foreign country is most people's definition of a terrorist attack. A declared war is one thing but this type of terror weapon is likely to backfire some day, if it hasn't already.

"Most people's definition of a terrorist attack" is any violence they don't believe in. It's a pejorative, not a description. Lets not do that fake objectivity thing here. The somewhat objective definition of terror attacks is no longer in use.

A question: are the double taps which allegedly end up killing rescuers meant to cause terror? I've seen these referenced by some sources claiming this, but I have never seen an alternative explanation, which makes me slightly skeptical.

It's one thing to kill people you are at war with(even if it's an odd war), it's another to intentionally terrorize civilian populations to not help your targets. The later, if it's actually what's going on, would be terrorism by most people's definition and very distressing.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#43

Post by yetanotherphd »

riggins wrote: post #29

Considering Bryant is one of the only operators speaking out, his conscience seems to bother him more than the average. Here's a comparison (an IAMA thread from reddit). http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ghkm7/iama_drone_sens... Q: Have you ever had to strike a target that you were not comfortable with? sensor_operator: No, I trust our JTACs 1000000% they really know their stuff. While this was the top voted com…

It seems that you are interpreting that comment in an odd way to suit your agenda. If he "trusts" his "JTAC" then that implies that he believes something about the targets he is being given, not that he is willing to hit any target. The most obvious interpretation of the statement is that he has some notion of a legitimate target, and he believes that the JTACs share this notion and he trusts both their intention and ability to select only these targets.

EDIT: Holy fuck, there is even an edit that clarifies his actual meaning, and shows I am correct (I don't know when this edit was made, I am assuming it was made before your comment). Here is the clarification he added:

"Not really, this notion that we go out and pick our own targets is the most invalid statement ever. And by JTACs controlling us, we are an extension of their capability. They are the ones with boots on the ground, the know the ground situation WAY better than anyone thousands of miles away and they are ultimately responsible for Friendly forces lives and the lives of the civilians [my emphasis]. When they give us a target and clearance the burden is always on them unless something goes wrong and we miss. Then it becomes our fault. But JTACs really do know their stuff and if I didn't trust them then I wouldn't be here today."

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#44

Post by ansgri »

proksoup wrote: post #34

The worst human beings on the planet are the ones: 1) Building the guns/drones 2) Pulling the trigger of the guns/drones 3) Telling others to pull the trigger. No one in that chain is less responsible than the other.

You forgot those who develop technology to enable building better guns and drones.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#45

Post by yetanotherphd »

enko wrote: post #17

I couldn't finish this article. It just makes me too angry. Warrior? How dare anyone involved in this dignify themselves with such an honour-laden term. They're just murderers, and the fact they hide behind so many layers of technology just makes it all the more cowardly and despicable.

That is a very odd perspective. Surely the "honour" in being a warrior comes from the morality of the actions they are engaged in, and not whether or not they are personally at risk.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#46

Post by riggins »

jread wrote: post #40
riggins wrote: post #29

Considering Bryant is one of the only operators speaking out, his conscience seems to bother him more than the average. Here's a comparison (an IAMA thread from reddit). http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ghkm7/iama_drone_sens... Q: Have you ever had to strike a target that you were not comfortable with? sensor_operator: No, I trust our JTACs 1000000% they really know their stuff. While this was the top voted com…

Keep in mind that the JTAC is usually an enlisted soldier embedded with a ground unit. He is highly trained on ROE and positive ID, and generally has a good first hand perspective on what is happening on the ground. He is responsible for protecting the lives of the unit he is embedded with, and air assets are tasked to support him. From my experience, these are not warmongers, just guys doing their jobs, trying to pr…

I understand that. And this isn't about me trashing the operator.

But I also have a logical mind and I can't avoid the implication that if his JTAC was a bad apple, he'd do what the JTAC said.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#47

Post by mscarborough »

rayiner wrote: post #27

This is the future of warfare and it's a good thing. Way better than back when you would firebomb an industrial city or lob cruise missiles at poorly defined targets. No boots on the ground means none of our people at risk and drones are much more precise than bombs. The reactions in this thread demonstrate the classic uneasiness with killing a few people while being okay with killing lots of people. The people compl…

> The people complaining about drones likely had nothing to say about Clinton lobbing cruise missiles into downtown Belgrade.

Huh?

People 'complaining about drones' are very likely the same people that 'complained' about the other unjustified wars and bomb/missile attacks over the last 60 years. But Clinton is what you're going with here...really?

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#48

Post by hooande »

Drones are just like any other tools of war. The fact that the combatant is sitting very far away from the battle doesn't make the killing any less real, the stakes any lower or the human cost to the operator any cheaper. War is hell because of the horrible decisions that have to be made. Distance doesn't make it any easier.

Drones don't kill innocent non-combatants, people do. There are many cases of civilians being killed by artillery shells or friendly fire by naval guns. I'm sure there was even an errant trebuchet or two. Long distance warfare is ok as long as there are people like Byrant on the other end of the weapon, people who worry and struggle with the moral consequences of what they have done. I feel for him and what he's had to go through, but at the same time I'm glad that drone warfare hasn't become the video game that people thought it would be.

Some of the commenters on this thread sound like the people who would throw things at veterans returning from vietnam. Have we learned nothing? The blame for the cost of war doesn't go to to the weapons or the people who pull the triggers. We're all responsible for the things done in our names, and responsible for changing them if we don't like the outcome.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#49

Post by anologwintermut »

riggins wrote: post #29

Considering Bryant is one of the only operators speaking out, his conscience seems to bother him more than the average. Here's a comparison (an IAMA thread from reddit). http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1ghkm7/iama_drone_sens... Q: Have you ever had to strike a target that you were not comfortable with? sensor_operator: No, I trust our JTACs 1000000% they really know their stuff. While this was the top voted com…

That really shouldn't outrage you just about drones. Anyone doing indirect fire, from the Taliban way outside the perimeter fence with mortar, to artillery guys in WWI, to pilots dropping bombs, is trusting the guy who picked the targets.

Hell, the guys who fletched arrows and cast musket balls were trusting they will be used justly and have always done so (or didn't care). Drone warfare really doesn't change that at all.

Fighting irregular forces does. It's far harder to be sure someone is an enemy.

Re: Confessions of a Drone Warrior

#50

Post by pointernil »

The historical trajectory of the "issue" of remote killing maybe starting with the ancient catapults, maybe earlier with spears or event the first rock ever thrown at an enemy; this development of increasingly "safer" ways to kill from far away will follow the trajectory unless humanity decides this got out of hand, is not tolerable, not in line with some higher moral understanding of military conflict and decides to stop the progression of the trajectory. Similar to the way ever mightier bombs and nuclear weapons were put under quite heavy "restriction" and "control" in the end.

Also there is some bias in the representation of the way the "drone systems" are perfectly working (they are not faultless obliviously) and they are certainly NOT the uber-over-mega weapons the stories make them to appear. This has implications:

1.) collateral damage is quite common

2.) the insurgents learn to "fight" them over time (this will not be reported on)

Pure technocratic minds may wonder about the "latencies" and the infrastructure involved...BUT just watch the skies at the next protest and remember the first time "just" tear gas got very precisely administered to a crowd.

The sad part as always: convincing the "political" circle in the US is not enough, the huge weapons industry needs to be provided with some replacement idea/product/contracts should the killing drones become banished or more controlled.

ps: i'd love to see the good old RATM create a song out the first few paragraphs of this gq text; proposed working title:

“missile off the rail”

/edit: typos

Post reply on HN